Loading document...
Application No.: 08/00108/B Applicant: Mr & Mrs Berry Proposal: ______________________________ - Seacliffe Old Castletown Road: Ballaveare Braddan - Interest expressed: ______________________________ ### Consultations Consultee: - Notes: - Notes: - Manx National Heritage - Consultee: - Notes: - Comments received Site Address: - Upper Kirkhill - Ballakillowey Road - Colby - Isle Of Man - IM9 4BW ### Considerations Case Officer: Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken: - Site Visit: - Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee ### Written Representations - Callows Yard Developments: Limited Highbury House 3 - Parliament Square: Castletown - **Objects to the
Consultee: - Notes: - Highways Division Consultee: - Notes: - Do not oppose subject to condition. Consultee: - Notes: - Rushen Commissioners Consultee: - Notes: - No objection Consultee: - Notes: - Chief Fire Officer Consultee: - Notes: - Note received Consultee: - Notes: - Manx Electricity Authority Officer's Report: ______________________________
The site represents the curtilage of an existing dwelling, situated to the west of the Sloc (A36). The dwelling is a traditional cottage which has been extended on both sides - to the south is a two storey
7 May 2008
extension and to the north is a single storey garage. The property is a four bedroomed two bathroomed property situated off a private lane, part of which belongs to the applicant, and which passes Kirkle Farm and Kirkle Cottage before joining the A36 just to the south of its junction with the B44 Ballakilpheric Road. A green way - public right of way lies some 160 m to the rear of the existing building.
The site lies within an area designated on the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 as of an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance just outside a site of archaeological interest and just to the north of land owned by the (then) Forestry Mines and Land Board or the Government Property Trustees and an area of ecological interest which focuses on the western coastline.
The following applications have been considered in respect of this site: PA 87/4755 - alterations and extensions to provide additional living accommodation, double garage and porch - permitted on review PA 88/4427 - alterations and extensions to form extra living accommodation and garage - permitted PA 90/0374 - alterations and extensions - refused PA 95/0592 - approval in principle to convert garage into living accommodation - permitted PA 97/1149 - conversion of garage into living accommodation - permitted on review PA 97/1063 - erection of five stables and hay store - permitted PA 02/0797 - creation of wildlife pond - permitted PA 07/1109 - alterations and extensions - refused for reasons relating to the proposed window pattern and patio doors and the replacement of a stone annex with a rendered extension which would be more prominent in the landscape. A note was added regarding the internal layout and comments of the Fire Prevention Officer and also suggesting that the rear extension should be finished in stone. The applicant was also advised in the notice about the comments on the neighbour regarding land ownership.
Proposed now is the demolition of the existing property and its replacement with a new dwelling. The application form suggests that the new dwelling will be in the same position as the existing but there is no existing or proposed site plan to demonstrate this. The outline of the existing building is shown on the proposed floor plans.
The existing cottage has a principal footprint of 8.5 m by 7.2 m with two storeys and with a two storey annex on one side which has a footprint of 7 m by 5 m and a single storey garage on the other side which is 6.6 m by 6.8 m . The main block is 7.5 m in height and the two storey side annex is the same height.
The proposed dwelling has a main footprint of 14.4 m by 9.4 m with a rear annex which is 6.5 m by 7 m and a rear porch which wraps around the north western part of the house. There is a single storey room which sits on the southern elevation but which is not shown on the ground floor plan which adds a further 3.6 m by 5.5 m . The new house main block is 9 m in height and the rear annex is slightly lower at 8.2 m high. There is no garaging provided in this application.
The applicant has submitted amended plans which show a reduction in the height of the main ridge now 8.1 m , the same as that of the rear annex. The new ridge is thus 300 mm higher than the existing, not the same height as was annotated on the originally submitted drawings or 1.5 m higher as was shown on the originally submitted drawings. The walling will be finished in stone which is annotated but not illustrated on the drawings. The proposed dwelling has a footprint of 227.81 square metres and a total floor area of 404.87 square metres. This compares with the existing which has a footprint of 141.95 square metres ( 98.4 square metres excluding the garage) and a total floor area of 237.15 square metres ( 193.6 square metres excluding the garage). The proposed dwelling
represents an increase of 60% in footprint (131% excluding the garage) and an increase in floor area of 70% (109% excluding the garage). This compares with the previous scheme of extensions which resulted in a footprint of 203.76 square metres and an overall floor area of 336.76 square metres. The rear extension is now 0.5m longer than the previous scheme of extensions and the main dwelling is 2.2m wider. The principle two storey elevation is 0.9m wider than the previous cottage with its two storey annex to the south west.
The Fire Prevention Officer requests the installation of smoke detection which is dealt with as part of the Building Regulations and as such is not a planning matter.
Rushen Parish Commissioners suggest that the building should be stone faced to minimise its impact and remind the Committee that there is a footpath running to the rear of the property. They raise no objection to the amended proposal.
Callow's Yard Developments Ltd write in on behalf of the occupants and the owners of Kirkle Farm and object to the application on a number of grounds. They point out that the site has been incorrectly defined and includes land which belongs to Kirkle Farm, not the applicant although the applicant has a right of way over this land. This was pointed out to the applicant in the previous application. The objection also refers to the value of the existing property and deduces that as the previous proposed alterations were considered detrimental to the character of the property that this renders the property unsuited for demolition under the provisions of Housing Policy 14 of the Strategic Plan. They query that the property is in sufficiently poor repair to warrant demolition and rebuilding of the structure and suggest that the size of the proposed new building would result in over-development of the site. They suggest that the use of the right of way would be logistically difficult as the lane is not suited to large construction vehicles.
Manx National Heritage do not appear to object to the principle of the replacement of the dwelling but query whether a 5 bay dwelling with large rear extension will be appropriate in such a prominent location and whether this complies with Housing Policy 14.
A resident of Port Soderick indicates that he does not oppose the principle of the replacement of the dwelling which is of "poor form" compared with the "preferable" design of the proposed dwelling.
The Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division raise no objection provided that the development makes provision for three off street parking spaces.
Manx Electricity Authority make comments about the existing electricity supplies on/near the site.
The application should be assessed against the policies of the Strategic Plan and in particular Environment Policy 1 which protects the countryside for its own sake, Strategic Policy 5 which requires that new development should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island and General Policy 3 which states that development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development with the exception of development which complies with Housing Policies 11 - 14 inclusive.
Housing Policy 12 makes provision for the replacement of existing dwellings within the countryside where the property concerned has not lost its habitable status through abandonment or where the existing dwelling is of "architectural or historic interest and is capable of renovation". There is no dispute regarding the habitable status of the property. Whilst the previous decision was concerned with any adverse impact on the appearance of the existing property, this does not necessarily imply that the property is of such architectural or historical merit as to warrant retention in the context of this Policy. Indeed, there is from Manx National Heritage no objection to the principle of the demolition and re-building of the existing property. The main cottage is attractive although the ground floor windows appear as if they have been enlarged in the past and are more square in
7 May 2008
proportion that those above. The windows in the two storey extension are not in line with those in the main cottage. The modern garage doors in the north eastern annex are another obviously later addition to the property. It should also be remembered that significant alterations were previously proposed and the reason for refusal of that application PA 07/1109, related only to the fenestration.
As such, it is not considered that the existing cottage is of such architectural or historic merit as to oppose the principle of demolition and reconstruction.
It is then appropriate to consider Housing Policy 14. This states "Where a replacement dwelling is permitted, it must not be substantially different to the existing in terms of siting and size unless changes to the siting or size would result in an overall environmental improvement; the new building should therefore generally be sited on the "footprint" of the existing and should have a floor area which is not more than greater than that of the original building (floor areas should be measured externally and should not include attic space or outbuildings)." The siting is on the footprint of the existing, however the size is larger - see above. The Policy goes on to say that "Consideration may be given to proposals which result in a larger dwelling where this involves the replacement of an existing dwelling of poor form with one of more traditional character, or where by its design or siting, there would be less visual impact". In this case, whilst the dwelling would be larger, finishing it in stone will reduce its impact as the main areas of prominence of the existing building are its chimney stacks and the white gable which are clearly visible from the road. Whilst the proposed chimney stacks will still be rendered, there will only be two of them and the gables will both be finished in stone which will reduce the impact of the property considerably.
The most perceivable difference between what exists and what is proposed, taking into account what was proposed previously and which was not found to be unacceptable in form or massing, is the width of the main part of the dwelling which has increased from 7.2 m to 9.3 m and the resultant relationship in proportion of the roof profile and stacks. However, this is not particularly prominent, even from the public footpath to the rear.
In summary it is considered that the environmental benefit of the scheme from the use of stonework will outweigh the policy presumption against extensions in excess of of the size of the existing and as such the application should be permitted.
Logistical problems of how the development will be undertaken, physically or legally is not generally a planning matter - the applicant could use smaller vehicles to access the site. There is space on the site for the parking of 3 vehicles although the Strategic Plan requires there to be only 2.
The points raised by the Manx Electricity Authority and The Isle of Man Fire and Rescue Service are not material planning considerations and should not be referred to in planning conditions or notes but referred directly to the applicant by the agencies concerned.
The Department of Transport and the local authority are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (c) and (d), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.
The owners and occupiers of Kirkle Farm share an access with the application site and as such should be afforded party status in this instance.
Manx National Heritage raise issues which are material planning considerations and are a statutory authority and as such should be afforded party status in this instance.
Manx Electricity Authority and The Isle of Man Fire and Rescue Service raise issues which are not planning matters and as such should not be afforded party status in this instance.
The resident of Port Soderick is not directly affected by the proposal and as such should not be afforded party status in this instance.
In summary therefore, the following parties accord with the requirements of Government Circular 1/06:
The owners and occupiers of Kirkle Farm Manx National Heritage Department of Transport Highways Division Rushen Commissioners
Recommended Decision: Permitted
Date of Recommendation: 06.05.2008
N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
This permission relates to the erection of a replacement dwelling as shown in drawings 207-01a and 270-04a received on 2nd April, 2008 and the location plan received on 22nd January, 2008.
All exterior walling must be finished in natural Manx stone, traditionally laid.
All roofing must be in dark natural slate.
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2005 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order) no extensions, greenhouses, walls, gates, fences, garden sheds, summerhouses, flag poles, decking, garages, or tanks for the storage of oil for domestic heating shall be erected (other than those expressly authorised by this approval.)
The applicant should take into consideration the ownership of the access lane from the A36 and any potential difficulties in access for construction vehicles.
7 May 2008 08/00108/B Page 6 of 6
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
